import_block

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does not insert the block, only copies the definition, and references the source file. However, it does not mention potential side effects like name conflicts or dependencies, so it is not fully exhaustive but provides solid transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with three sentences that front-load the core function, then add real-world context, then give a follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and three parameters, the description gives sufficient context for selection: it explains the core mechanism, the source location, and the next step. The presence of an output schema covers return values. However, it lacks detail on the 'rename' parameter and conflict behavior, but overall it is adequate for an agent to choose and invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly refers to source and name ('desde otro DWG', 'definicion de un bloque'), but completely omits the 'rename' parameter and provides no details on parameter formats or defaults. This fails to adequately explain the three parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool imports a block definition from another DWG into the active drawing without inserting it, using a specific verb ('Trae') and resource ('definicion de un bloque'). It distinguishes itself from insert_block by explicitly noting it does not insert and that insertion is a separate step.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit context for when to use this tool: for the real Azcuy bathroom typologies stored in SR-TIPOLOGIAS BAÑOS.dwg, and instructs to position the block afterwards with insert_block. This provides clear usage guidance and an alternative follow-up tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.